Photo Editing

[Jessica Forster]

not sure if this is the right forum, please feel free to move it if not.

Took my first portrait on a DSLR and then edited it also for the first time.

First picture is the original picture.
Second picture I have edited to darken the back ground
Third picture I have blurred the background slightly more on top of the darker background.

Opinions on these? Good for a general portrait? Where to improve?
Anything different I should have done with the editing?

 

[Mark G]

I think you may be concentrating on the wrong areas.

A portrait is about the subject(s), not the background. For this image I'd start with reducing the shadows around the eyes and left side of the face. Bring up the whites in the eyes a bit too, then see where you are.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Processing-wise, I'd probably work the whole image for highlights, shadows, basic exposure levels, then set B&W points, then if necessary selectively lift the shadows on the girl's face, sharpen up the eyes a little.

It's potentially a nice pic. Your focus point is a little far forwards, and you can see that the dog's face is going OOF parallel to the girl's eyes, meaning that her eyes will also not be in focus. Eyes are generally the most important part of a person to get sharp, since they are the part we identify as being 'them'.

Hope that's useful.

 

[Jessica Forster]

My main aim with this image was to get the blurred background as this was something that I was struggling to capture, ( should probably have mentioned that sorry)

Concentrating on the portrait it's self I'll definitely have a go at that! Thank you

 

[Jessica Forster]

Processing-wise, I'd probably work the whole image for highlights, shadows, basic exposure levels, then set B&W points, then if necessary selectively lift the shadows on the girl's face, sharpen up the eyes a little.

It's potentially a nice pic. Your focus point is a little far forwards, and you can see that the dog's face is going OOF parallel to the girl's eyes, meaning that her eyes will also not be in focus. Eyes are generally the most important part of a person to get sharp, since they are the part we identify as being 'them'.

Hope that's useful.

Fantastic thank you

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•


My take in this is the difference between positive
or negative value editing.

You edited with negative values the BG as I edited
with positive values the subjects in the shot.

Tonal separation is a great way to proceed but an
even better one when applied on the right area.
Here, my suggestion was applied in your second
image.

​

 

[blakester]

Jessica, I would turn your original post (OP) on its head for want of a better expression.
Rather than think about processing the portrait to your artistic vision, I would try and realise this in camera with some processing polish afterwards.
You wished to have a blurred background, there a more than a few ways to achieve it, lens wide open, longer focal length plus increased subject to background distance to name a few.
Careful choice of background initially would help too. Watch out for clutter/items/lighter tones etc in your background which draw the eye. The ball in the background draws my eye a little as it is a similar colour to your little model(s) face.
I do think it is a captivating portrait of what looks like me to be two very good friends, with a little attention to detail I think you are onto a winner.
Oh just to add, I think a little added light on their faces from a reflector would be beneficial.

Good work Jessica, I look forward to more of your portraits.

 

[Jessica Forster]

•


My take in this is the difference between positive
or negative value editing.

You edited with negative values the BG as I edited
with positive values the subjects in the shot.

Tonal separation is a great way to proceed but an
even better one when applied on the right area.
Here, my suggestion was applied in your second
image.

​

I understand what you mean and understand what you have done, I did originally lighten her face when editing however backtracked on it as I felt it had an un natural look to it and she was to pale, however that is just my opinion and comparing your image to the second one I posted I do like yours but still feel it looks a little un natural, maby this is just because I'm an ammature at all this or because of the camera quality (it's not the best)

 

[Jessica Forster]

Jessica, I would turn your original post (OP) on its head for want of a better expression.
Rather than think about processing the portrait to your artistic vision, I would try and realise this in camera with some processing polish afterwards.
You wished to have a blurred background, there a more than a few ways to achieve it, lens wide open, longer focal length plus increased subject to background distance to name a few.
Careful choice of background initially would help too. Watch out for clutter/items/lighter tones etc in your background which draw the eye. The ball in the background draws my eye a little as it is a similar colour to your little model(s) face.
I do think it is a captivating portrait of what looks like me to be two very good friends, with a little attention to detail I think you are onto a winner.
Oh just to add, I think a little added light on their faces from a reflector would be beneficial.

Good work Jessica, I look forward to more of your portraits.

Sorry I don't quite understand your first line?

To get a blurred back ground I have been using a Nikon D50 with 18-55mm kit lens, on aperture priority usually around f/4 but I am finding that unless the camera is extreamly close to the subject the background does not blur, am I doing something wrong?

Completely understand your background comment!

Thank you

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I do like yours but…

•


My edit wanted to illustrate the difference and is
in no way a final rendition.

Technically, the lower tones were raised in value
through an adjustment layer applied to the subjects.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Sorry I don't quite understand your first line?

To get a blurred back ground I have been using a Nikon D50 with 18-55mm kit lens, on aperture priority usually around f/4 but I am finding that unless the camera is extreamly close to the subject the background does not blur, am I doing something wrong?

Completely understand your background comment!

Thank you

I think you got the gist of it very well actually. The kit lens is a good all-rounder, but because the largest aperture is around f3.5-f4 it cannot blur the background as effectively as a lens with a wider maximum aperture. In this case something like a 50mm f1.8 prime lens would have been more effective used at around f2.0. So the idea would be to create the blurred background at the time you took the picture, rather than afterwards.

 

[Phil V]

Sorry I don't quite understand your first line?

To get a blurred back ground I have been using a Nikon D50 with 18-55mm kit lens, on aperture priority usually around f/4 but I am finding that unless the camera is extreamly close to the subject the background does not blur, am I doing something wrong?

Completely understand your background comment!

Thank you

I'll try and help.

Doing this in post, both increasing exposure on the face and blurring the background, is the wrong approach.

How long does it take to fix in post (convincingly)? 10mins

How long does it take to get the photo right at capture 1/125 of a second.

It's great that we have PP tools, but they should never be a replacement for photographic technique. Always aim to capture the shot in camera, then improving it is quicker and will make a better image. Shoot more, cull more, process less.

But for the positives, you got down to subject level and caught a nice expression. For a newbie it's s nice shot.

 

[Jessica Forster]

I think you got the gist of it very well actually. The kit lens is a good all-rounder, but because the largest aperture is around f3.5-f4 it cannot blur the background as effectively as a lens with a wider maximum aperture. In this case something like a 50mm f1.8 prime lens would have been more effective used at around f2.0. So the idea would be to create the blurred background at the time you took the picture, rather than afterwards.

Fully understand that! Thought that may hav been the problem! Thank you

 

[Jessica Forster]

I'll try and help.

Doing this in post, both increasing exposure on the face and blurring the background, is the wrong approach.

How long does it take to fix in post (convincingly)? 10mins

How long does it take to get the photo right at capture 1/125 of a second.

It's great that we have PP tools, but they should never be a replacement for photographic technique. Always aim to capture the shot in camera, then improving it is quicker and will make a better image. Shoot more, cull more, process less.

But for the positives, you got down to subject level and caught a nice expression. For a newbie it's s nice shot.

Understand this also! Thank you for your help!

 

[juggler]

I'll try and help.

Doing this in post, both increasing exposure on the face and blurring the background, is the wrong approach.

How long does it take to fix in post (convincingly)? 10mins

How long does it take to get the photo right at capture 1/125 of a second.

It's great that we have PP tools, but they should never be a replacement for photographic technique. Always aim to capture the shot in camera, then improving it is quicker and will make a better image. Shoot more, cull more, process less.

But for the positives, you got down to subject level and caught a nice expression. For a newbie it's s nice shot.

+1

 

[KernowChris]

As a complete beginner, can I ask, given the lens used, would taking the shot with a longer focal length have helped with the dof (assuming it was't taken at 55mm) ?

 

[SKM]

Rather than think about processing the portrait to your artistic vision, I would try and realise this in camera with some processing polish afterwards.
You wished to have a blurred background, there a more than a few ways to achieve it, lens wide open, longer focal length plus increased subject to background distance to name a few.
Careful choice of background initially would help too. Watch out for clutter/items/lighter tones etc in your background which draw the eye. The ball in the background draws my eye a little as it is a similar colour to your little model(s) face.

that is just what I was thinking. She is obviously happy to pose for you so you had moved her so that you had uniform grass as the background all you would have needed to worry about then was the actual portrait

 

[mrtoad]

not sure if this is the right forum, please feel free to move it if not.

Took my first portrait on a DSLR and then edited it also for the first time.

First picture is the original picture.
Second picture I have edited to darken the back ground
Third picture I have blurred the background slightly more on top of the darker background.

Opinions on these? Good for a general portrait? Where to improve?
Anything different I should have done with the editing?

View attachment 74670 View attachment 74671

View attachment 74672

sdrt1 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

go for lightening generally then you can darken later...be careful not to lose the tonality though
RAW data is there for a reason...do your work in that mode before setting the image in jpeg stone
if your camera does that...
cheers
geof

 

[blakester]

Sorry @mrtoad but your edit has totally wrecked the image.
You've managed to lose all the detail in the dogs nose/snout and the top of the girls hair.
It's also become very noisy.

 

[mrtoad]

Sorry @mrtoad but your edit has totally wrecked the image.
You've managed to lose all the detail in the dogs nose/snout and the top of the girls hair.
It's also become very noisy.

yes it was a quick blast...my intention was to show how one can get rid of the darkness
the data i worked on ( 452Kb) was the downloaded forum one and not the original...this could perhaps have introduced some poor quality
anyway moon man...why dont you edit it and stop criticising..
talk about noisy!!
course you wouldnt like me to wreck your precious images being a NO man...

cheers
toady

 

[KernowChris]

Allowing for everything everybody else has said, and being a total amateur myself I tried a little lightroom on it. Allowing for my mistake just under her left eye, and even tho its just a downloaded jpg, LR continues to amaze me.

 

[ancient_mariner]

TBH editing a somewhat compressed jpeg image isn't going to work well. Mr Toad's edit showed what correcting the exposure could do for the overall look of the image, but of course it blew the highlights. Really the scene needed something to fill in the shadows, which wasn't going to happen for a quick shot.

 

[Gareth_E]

Here is a quick edit. Brightened the midtones, dark patches under eyes reduced, and also fixed some colour contamination on her face from the dog which made her skin look a little yellow. Also a subtle vignette to draw attention away from the background slightly.

I have to say, you did a fantastic job of exposing the original, even though at first it appears dark - I looked at the histogram in Photoshop and it showed information from one end to the other, with almost zero clipping. Which meant that it was just a midtone adjustment to brighten the image. Highlight and shadow points were pretty much perfect.

Also good composition - the girl's eye is almost bang on the 'thirds' intersecting point. I would say a highly successful 1st attempt at a portrait all things considered!

 

[blakester]

yes it was a quick blast...my intention was to show how one can get rid of the darkness
the data i worked on ( 452Kb) was the downloaded forum one and not the original...this could perhaps have introduced some poor quality
anyway moon man...why dont you edit it and stop criticising..
talk about noisy!!
course you wouldnt like me to wreck your precious images being a NO man...

cheers
toady

Surely the purpose of editing anothers image is to display how/where the image in question can be enhanced/improved?
IMHO it defeats the purpose of the exercise if your edit loses what I consider to be important detail in the image. To say that it was a low resolution file is just a cop out.
The OP asked for suggestions on improvement and editing, I just don't think yours was a particularly good example. There is no learning in there, that is to put up an edit with obvious flaws is lazy IMHO.

I dont understand where your (slightly) antagonistic post quoting me is coming from to be honest.
Whats with the name calling?
I made my suggestions further up the thread and it doesn't involve editing.
Also, is it not ones prerogative to choose whether they wish their images to be edited? Why else would the choice be available?

I at no point mentioned my images being precious, if you care to search you will see I have several images here that are up for critique.

 

[mrtoad]

Surely the purpose of editing anothers image is to display how/where the image in question can be enhanced/improved?
IMHO it defeats the purpose of the exercise if your edit loses what I consider to be important detail in the image. To say that it was a low resolution file is just a cop out.
The OP asked for suggestions on improvement and editing, I just don't think yours was a particularly good example. There is no learning in there, that is to put up an edit with obvious flaws is lazy IMHO.

I dont understand where your (slightly) antagonistic post quoting me is coming from to be honest.
Whats with the name calling?
I made my suggestions further up the thread and it doesn't involve editing.
Also, is it not ones prerogative to choose whether they wish their images to be edited? Why else would the choice be available?

I at no point mentioned my images being precious, if you care to search you will see I have several images here that are up for critique.

but not to edit....?? frightened are we
and you have called me a spade here which i appreciate...
no offence of course

toad the waster....lighten up old chap
peace?

 

[Plivez]

Here is my edit, for me the most problematic issue is the messy background, so pay attention to that in future.
.

 

[Plivez]

Maybe lighter, can't decide. Kinda depends on your monitor / screen etc.
.

 

[Jessica Forster]

Maybe lighter, can't decide. Kinda depends on your monitor / screen etc.
.

These have very yellow tones

 

[Plivez]

Sunny tone. You can have any tone you like, I thought the others looked a bit grey. But it's all fairly subjective, this is just what pleased me. Cleaned up background and lightened shadows I think.

 

[Phil V]

These have very yellow tones

Which, like all the other processing above proves that 'processing' is subjective and a personal decision, whereas the bits you capture in camera (lighting, focus, composition) are fairly objective.

If the image comes out of the camera 'right' you can process it any way you like, but if you don't get it right in camera, processing just means trying to make the best of a bad job.

It takes a thousandth of a second to take the picture, you can waste hours in Photoshop trying to improve it (and not get as good a result)